tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN December 2, 2014 6:00pm-8:01pm EST
so as to put together the sort of research that we require and the respite programs that are essential. having talked to a number of caregivers through my tenure here, now in my closing out my third term. but before that in the state assembly of new york, i would routinely hear from folks who would deal with these situations, family issues, in ways they never imagined would be possible. i know of some spouses that indicated to me that while they stayed home full-time being the caregiver, they sought employment and used every bit of that salary that came from that new employment, to go toward the cost of caregivers. now, they did that in order to save a relationship. it was a tremendous emotional drain on their relationship because it is not easy serving as a caregiver.
and so individuals have told me as spouses, that they have gone out, sought full-time employment and again passed over that salary to the respite person. that's the sort of painful pressure under which individuals and couples, families are living. many have chosen to keep their loved ones at home. there are issues of safety, economic duress, and certainly our system has to respond to that. so the sooner we set our sights on a cure, on funding that's adequate and effective for reserge purposes and for developing the responsiveness of the medical teams out there, via perhaps pharmaceutical assistance and development there, the better our economic situation will be in regard to these struggles system of here's
a chance for congress to respond in very magnanimous terms that will allow us to state cumulatively that we get it. that we're there in an order of compassion, that we understand it's about a dignity factor, it's about quality of life, it's about providing hope to situations that may be rendered hopeless. and isn't that the best element of work that we can do here to bridge that order of hope to those who have been so stressed and who have been given a walk in life a journey, that is powerfully painful. so i just appreciate the fact that we're utilizing these opportunities such as this order, special order, to bring to the attention of those concerned with these issues to a razor sharp focus and to allow
people to speak out there as the general public in support of measures that can be taken of budget appropriations that can be secured, of opportunities that come in securing the resources essential, to go forward and offer the fullest response that we can. again, health care situations are driven by this. there are huge costs if we don't respond to the needs of individuals living with alzheimer's and then there is that ripple effect occurrence that's happening all too frequently for the caregiver community that is also worn thin because of this assignment, because of this mission that they embrace. and it's honorable that they do these things but we also have to work the system here on the hill in washington to respond to them with a degree of reverence and
common sense and understanding, fully acknowledging that there are efforts that could be made here that speak to the situations at hand in the most effective manner. so representative garamendi, i thank you for bringing us together on this evening of thoughtfulness here concerning dementia and alzheimer's as a particular stress. mr. garamendi: thank you very much, mr. tonko. thank you for joining us in this special order hour. working with you is always a pleasure. this subject is one i think you and i and our colleagues will want to take up as the days go forward. in the spring, the 2015 alzheimer's day will occur once again here in washington, d.c. there will be thousands of people coming to congress, knocking on our doors, grabbing our lapels and asking us to pay attention. pay attention to this illness. i want to just review very, very quickly some of the costs that
are here and basically wrap this up. you talked about the home care, there are articles that appeared recently in the "sacramento bee" about elderly people taking care of each other. a wife taking care of a husband in their 50th year of marriage with severe alzheimer's, the love that is so apparent, but also the difficulty of an elderly person taking care of another elderly person. we can address that. that's what the legislation is all about, bringing medicare into this. the research thing we talked about earlier, i'm going to put up very, very quickly, a couple of charts. this one, what's going to happen to the federal budget if we do not address alzheimer's. $122 billion today, 35 year 40rks years we're going to look
at $800 billion, and that doesn't include the private ,200 r, it will be $1 billion spent on this. if you're a deficit hawk you should be paying attention to this. what do we need to address it? we need care for he care givers. we also need research. the plan in the earlier legislation laying out the alzheimer's plan called for an additional $200 million this $566 million the that we're currently spending. keep in mind that for cancer it's nearly $5.5 billion for hiv-aids. for cancer it's nearly $5.5 billion, for hiv-aids $3 billion. not a nickel should be taken away from these. but we should add $200 million this year as we complete the
appropriation process right now. now people say, where can we find the money? well, let's see. we just said we're going to syria 5,600,000,000 in and iraq. new money. i know that my work on the armed services committee, i'm on the strategic arms subcommittee, we're talking about more than $12 billion over the next six or seven years building a -- rebuilding a nuclear bomb that nobody knows what to do with. so maybe there are choices that we can make. would america be better off with a new nuclear weapon or a rebuild nuclear weapon spending $12 billion or so on that? or maybe spending it on alzheimer's research. our work is about choices, mr. tonko. how are we going to allocate the resources of this nation? and my suggestion is, we go
where every family in america will be affected. every family. either directly, as my family has been directly impacted by this, my mother-in-law living with us the last three years of her life, died at the age of 92. yes, we were affected. we know the genetic issues. we know that my grandchildren looking out there going, this is a genetic thing, papa. what about me? so that worry carries through our family and i suspect it carries through every family in america. either directly or indirectly. so let's make a choice. let's make a choice to attack with research, with care, with funding, the most expensive, illnessmon, most deadly in america and in other
developing -- developed countries. dementia and alzheimer's. we can do it. this is not an impabble task. this is simply a task of focusing like a laser on this issue. and when we do, we will find the same success that we've seen with heart, cancer, and hiv-aids, not cured, not stopped, but a very significant drop in the deaths associated with those illnesses. mr. tonko, i am completed mine tonight, i think you have another comment you'd like to make. mr. tonko: just to attach my comments to those you've just closed your statement by, you know, this bankruptcy that's driven -- that is driven by certain catastrophic situations and health care costs, are impacting far too many families. and this order of work here in the congress is about prioritizations. you know, we've spent trillions
on war and we have really diminished the investments in domestic programming, including health care. we come up with all sorts of efforts called sequestration, which is a hidden attack on investments for a domestic agenda. we have to be cautious about how we're just guiding those priorities that we're establishing in our budgeting here in washington. but if we're to prioritize based on where the public demands are, let me just suggest this in closing. i have gone to the alzheimer's walk in my district for the past several years and every year the same statement is made. this is a large -- this is the largest crowd ever assembled. it just keeps growing. it sell tells me the consciousness of this country is that we want something done for this dreadful disease. done -- doing something that will cure our individuals who
are walking and living with alzheimer's and dementia. people have asked for this by their participation in local fundraising events. is that the way we respond to a crisis? by hoping we have good weather on the walk day? that we raise our goal? our intended goal? that given year? that people are strapped -- as people are strapped with expenses of care giving and of medication that's dispensed to those with alzheimer's and dementia? there's a better way to complement that, too, lead the effort -- that, to lead the effort here in washington with the cure that can be found work the advancements in the pharmaceutical industry. to be able to extend life and enhance life and the quality of life. that's what's i think so powerful about the opportunity we have here. i believe we can be those agents of hope. i do believe firmly that the priority here is to address this crisis that is devastating our
american families and our economy, let's go forward and be those agents of hope. let's provide for a better tomorrow, let's show people that there is a compassion that a company -- that accompanies the effort here's in washington. with that, representative garamendi, thank you for bringing us together in an important discussion that needs to be followed up with resources and public policy and certainly prioritization that brings us to the threshold of responsiveness that is so needed and so deserved and so much correct. mr. garamendi: thank you very much, mr. tonko, for joining us tonight, and i thank my colleague mrs. fattah of pennsylvania and ms. speer of california on this important -- ms. speier of california on this important subject. mr. speaker, we yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. does the gentleman have a motion? mr. garamendi: can i get another hour? mr. speaker, i move for adjournment. the speaker pro tempore: the
lot of things that individual members would pick on and complain about. hakem: why do these -- host: why do these need to be revised here? guest: what's driving the timing is the end of the congressional year, congress is trying to get out by the end of next week and the second is the tax filing season that starts in january. the inch r.s. says it needs congress to move as soon as possible to decide what the taxes will look like for 2014 so they can finish all the forms, get the instructions ready and start being ready to accept returns. if you don't know whether you can deduct state sales taxes and you live in nevada or texas that doesn't have an income tax you don't know what to do. the inch r.s. says they need to move now in order for the filing season to open on time or even a little late in mid to late january. host: how would congress propose pay for all these tax extensions?
guest: they're not. this bill doesn't have any significant offsets. it would add to the federal deficit over the next decade. they agreed that these things were in policy and in exestence in 2013 and they should continue going forward and you shouldn't have to pay for that is the basing argue. host: what's going on here and what are their roles moving forward? guest: don't know much about the why of what happened there but there were about 55 tax breaks that expired and only a handful that didn't get extended in the house bill. word of the tax break, tax credit for plug-in two and three-wheel vehicles, electric motorcycles, basically.
one maker of those is in oregon, the home state of ron wyden. dave camp left it out and wyden, of course is is saying it's anti-invasion. he's not happy about that. and going forward, you know, look, those two had a working relationship. they and senator reed were getting close to a deal to make a bunch of these breaks permanent and extend the rest for two years through 2015. that fell apart spectacular last week and there's been a bit of animosity since then. host: ron wyden won't be head of the finance committee, you just tweeted about the future chair, orrin hatch, saying, the president and his liberal allies are unlikely to get a better tax extenders deal in the next congress. what's the likelihood of this moving forward with the -- even into next year?
guest: it's likely something will happen before the end of this year, this one-year bill looks most likely right now. you have senate democrats that are fine with it, the white house saying basically they're ok with the general idea of the shoverple extension, they haven't endorsed the bill yet. we'll see what happens when it gets over to the senate, whether they try to make minor changes, major changes or accept the bill as it is. when you have a bill like this that expired at the end of 2014, all of a sudden congress has to deal with this again next year. you have orrin hatch who will be the new chairman of finance committee in the senate, you've got paul ryan coming in in the house, a new team with the same issue coming back at the same problem in 2015. host: you can follow richard bin on twitter,@richardrubindc. thanks for joining us this afternoon. >> earlier today on capitol
hill, house speaker john boehner and other republican leaders briefed reporters on a range of issues including immigration policy, health care, and the g.o.p. agenda. this is 10 minutes. >> the american people want both parties to focus on helping our struggling economy and this week we'll pass legislation to help families with special needs and prevent tax hikes on millions of families and small businesses. the president on the other hand has ignored the will of the american people and refused to listen. he himself, or his decision to take unilateral action on immigration, action he himself said exceeded his authority, makes it harder for the american people and their elected representatives to trust his word on any issue. i said before thanksgiving the republicans would fight his unilateral actions. we're looking at a variety of
options both for now and when republicans control both houses of congress next year. we'll continue to discuss with our members a number of options in terms of how we will deal with this in consultation again with the members. but no decisions have been made at this point. >> welcome back. hope you all had a great television. i want to start with something i never thought i'd do, or that i've never done before. i agree with chuck schumer. immaterial to quote senator schumer. when he talked about obama care, he quoted, wasn't the change we were hired to make, americans were crying out for the end of the recession, for better wages, more jobs, not changes in health care. what i see today when you look at the "wall street journal," the article today basic costs squeeze families because of rise in health care costs. then you look at the work that chairman camp and senator reed did together to make a
bipartisan agreement when i -- when it came to tax extenders. made a lot of it permanent to help job creation. but unfortunately, the president disagreed with a bipartisan agreement. now the house will act this week, we will move extenders and we will also bring up the able act. but again, when you look long-term, when there's a bipartisan agreement that helps bring jobs, i think it would be best for the white house to gree and move forward. >> hope you all had a good thanksgiving. as people are getting back to work, they're going to be focused on christmas season. and things they can do to provide for their family, to put more christmas gifts under the cree. -- under the tree. last thing they want to see under the tree is an increase in taxes. we're going to be bringing legislation to prevent that tax increase in the extenders bill. i think that's good for the economy. would have been nice to have a longer term deal.
unfortunately, the white house decided to go and block that. put more uncertainty on people's plates. when you look at what we're doing with the able act, i commend cathy mcmorris rodgers and pete sessions and so many others who have worked on something that will help people with disabilities and help them help themselves, this is something that will have a positive impact on millions of people across the country. finally this saturday in louisiana, we're going to see three more final referendums on president obama's agenda the president himself said that this election cycle will be a referendum on his agenda. we have three more elections, two congressional races, one senate race. i feel very confident that you're going to see those final nails in the president's agenda as people reject this liberal approach to running government by executive fiat. >> today i wanted to tell the story of a little boy who was
diagnosed with down syndrome three days after he was born. and with that came a long list of potential complecailingses. certainly many -- complications. certainly many doctors visits, therapies. you know, the potential of hearing loss, early alzheimer's, seven years later, as a mom of that little boy, nothing has given me greater joy than seing the positive impact that he is having on this world. that's why i'm proud to stand here today with mr. crenshaw and help bring the achieving a better life experience, the able act, to the house floor. because it is going to help millions of americans and their families who have children with disabilities. it's going to allow them to save for their future. when cole was born, my husband and i were told, don't put any assets in his name because it may jeopardize his ability to sign up for these programs one
day. you know what, that is the wrong message to send new parents who have hoped and -- hopes and dreams and are ready to save and sacrifice so that their children will have the opportunity for a better life. the able act is going to change this. it's going to empower those with disabilities to be able to save through tax-free savings accounts for expenses that they ay have related to medical visits, education, transportation. as a part of america's new congress, we are here to advance real solutions, solutions that are going to make people's lives better. solutions that empower people, individuals, no matter where you come from, no matter how much money you may make or what challenges you may face. the able act is just one of the many ways we're doing that. it's going to empower many people, including people like my son, cole, with the opportunity for a better life. nd that's why we are here.
>> one of the most important things we can do is to encourage economic growth and job creation. to provide certainty, a stable business environment, and the tax code is a natural place to start system of businesses and families can plan for their future. and that is what we have been working on for months, a bipartisan plan to make more important tax provisions permanent, including provisions for research expenditures, developmental programs, and teacher reimbursements. house republicans and senate democrats working together to get things done. to deliver real results for the challenges that we face. in this environment, in a divided government, we nearly had a plan to give some stability to our tax code.
and then the president spoke, saying, it's my way or the highway. issuing a veto threat to our agreement. so unfortunately, this week we'll pass a band-aid so folks at home won't be hit with unexpected taxes come april. as a c.p.a. who practiced in the tax area, i know that this is the bare minimum we can do. this is certainly not the way that federal tax law should be written. the american people spoke and elected america's new congress because they were sick of gridlock in washington. the president clearly didn't get this message. in the next congress, let's hope the american people get what they deserve, a government that's efficient and effective, a government that works. i know that we stand ready to lead and we hope the president will work with us.
>> my name is ander crenshaw and i don't usually attend these events but i've been asked to be here today to talk about the able act which is legislation that i first filed in 2006. over the years we have refined that, it's now simple, it's now straightforward, it's now understandable. as kathy said it allows individuals with disabilities to create a tax-free savings account as long as you use those proceeds for qualified expenses such as medical or educational or job training. individuals with disabilities face challenges that most of us can't even understand and this will allow them to reach their full potential. they have hopes and dreams just like all of us and it will help them realize those hopes and dreams. there are 380 house members that have signed on as co-sponsors. there are 4 senators that have signed a similar piece of legislation in the senate. and there's no piece of legislation that has more
bicameral, bipartisan support than the able act. cathy mcmorris rodgers, who talked about her son cole, pete sessions who can talk about his son alex, have been champions of this cause. so this is a chance for us to say we believe in individual responsibility, we believe in helping people become more independent and less dependent on government. there's a chance to work together to show we can speak out for people that can't always speak for themselves and to work together to solve problems. thank you. >> i'll take a couple of questions. >> [inaudible] >> i think they understand it's going to be difficult to take meaningful action as long as we have democrat control in the senate. -- where require
specifically does it say he has the power to not enforce the immigration laws? >> we don't believe the president has the authority to o what he did. have voted, do you believe this will be seen as a show boat? >> we're looking at a number of options in terms of how do we address this? this is a serious breach of our constitution. it's a serious threat to our system of government. and frackly, we have limited -- frankly we have limited options, limited abilities to deal with it directly. but that's why we're continuing to talk to our members, we have not made decisions about how we're going to proceed but we are in fact going to proceed. >> are you willing to say that the negotiation over permanently extending some of the tax provisions that have expired are
dead? >> the president killed them. period. >> last question. >> prior to the election you had a five-point plan for what you guys wanted to do when you came to power. part of it was dealing with the debt. are either of these paid for? >> sable a new program, it is paid for. the rest of the extenders are not paid for. in a similar fashion we're deal -- we're dealing with them in the same fashion we have for the last 25 years. there's no new issue here. thank you, everybody. >> is shutdown off the table? [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] >> coming up tonight, testimony from homeland security secretary
jeh johnson on border security and president obama's recent executive order on immigration. he spoke earlier today in front of the house homeland security committee. we'll show you that hearing tonight at 8:00 eastern here on c-span. and on c-span2, senate commerce committee hearing on the current domestic violence policies of professional sports leagues. testimony from former nfl player troy benson who spoke about his experiences as a child seeing his mother the victim of domestic violence. here's more now. >> domestic violence was a way of life for me growing up. my brother and i watched helplessly as my mother was beaten and knocked up conscious. we saw how she struggled to seek help and find the courage to say no more. the fear and complexities accompanying this violence
remain very real in my life today. i've committed my life's work for the last 20 years as an advocate against domestic violence in an effort to keep others from experiencing this lifetime pain. i relate to the 20 million ctims, survivor, of domestic violence, abuse, in every community across our great nation. in addition, i had the honor and the privilege of playing in the national football league for 15 years, 12 years of those years i served as a union official. four of those years i served as players association president. i support the interest of all players in a fair process. i led these efforts. i know the majority of our current and former players are crisk husbands, fathers, and men who have made incredible contributions to their communities.
mr. chairman, players know the league standards are not labor issues nor management issues. thear issues that concern everyone. in 2007, the league and players union worked closely together, collaborating in developing a personal conduct policy. i was part of those efforts. and today, just as in the past, the league has invited the nflpa along with other experts to assist us in setting the highest possible standards. the nfl has taken a number of steps to improve how we respond to incidents of domestic violence, child abuse and sexual assault. first, through efforts personally led by the commissioner, the nfl is undertaking a thorough review of our personal conduct policy, having consulted with over 100 leading experts across a broad range of subjects. our goal is to set clear rules to govern accountability for misconduct to establish a fair process for our players and employee discipline. we will create a conduct
committee responsible for review and recommend changes to the personal conduct policy going forward. experts will continue to advise both the conduct committee and the commission sore we always have the right voices at the table on both educational and disciplinary work. second, we're deploying a comprehensive mandatory education program for more than 5,000 men and women in the nfl family. our goal is to ensure that everyone understands and has the full scope of this behavior and is familiar with the warning signs associated with these crimes. education also promotes prevention. bistander intervention. how individuals can appropriately and safely help those at risk is another key focus of our education. third, we are training critical response teams to help prevent and respond quickly to family violence and sexual assault. including safety, medical, legal, and financial support.
fourth, we're supporting leading domestic violence and sexual assault awareness and prevention groups, including the national domestic violence hotline and the national sexual assault violence resource center. fifth and finally, we're raising awareness of this critical issue, domestic violence, child abuse, and sexual assault, in collaboration with the no more campaign. and the joyful heart foundation. the nfl is airing public service announcements during our games. finally, we are promoting programs for those who play, coach, and manage our game at all levels including age appropriate character development, healthy relationship education, as well as dating violence, domestic violence, child abuse and sexual assault education. we've learned a great deal from our mistakes and by listening to experts in the domestic violence, child abuse and sexual assault communities, the more we listened, the more we've learned
and become more aware of these complexities. both of the problem and the solution. we're working hard to balance the issues of a fair process with the goal of preventing and punishing these behaviors. mr. chairman and the committee, we believe that wearing the uniform of nfl player is a privilege. it is not a right. every member of the nfl community must embrace this unique leadership role that we play in our society. and the trust that you place in us. we look forward to working with the committee to advance these goals. i know we all share. thank you for this opportunity and chairman, i thank you for your lifetime service in this area. >> thank you, mr. vincent. that was excellent testimony and a good beginning.
thank you. >> part of a hearing held earlier today on domestic violence and professional sports leagues. you can see the entire event tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span2 or any time online at c-span.org. tomorrow on "washington journal," texas congressman kevin brady looks at the funding deadline in efforts to tax the tax extenders, the extension of expiring tax breaks before the end of the year. maryland senator ben cardin discusses immigration policy. as always, your fobe calls, facebook comments and tweets. "washington journal" is live very day at 7:00 a.m. eastern. some of those issue the tax extenders and immigration, came up at today's white house briefing.
>> good afternoon, everybody. i have a couple of announcements at the top, then i'll get to your questions. the president is looking forward to visiting the national institutes of health where he'll meet with some of the men and women on the frontlines of the fight against ebola. in addition to the news you heard yesterday, i'm sorry, that you heard last week, but the promising results of n.i.h.'s ebola vaccine candidate you saw tangible evidence of how far we have come in our ebola response over the last few months. the administration announced we have 35 medical facilities nationwide prepared to treat an ebola patient. this is up from three just a couple of months ago. we have similarly increased the number of domestic labs capable of testing for ebola from 13 up to 42. just as we have introduced new and enhanced screening and monitoring measures to further
protect americans here at home. of course, americans won't be completely safe until we have ended the outbreak in west africa, which is why we have also focused on stanching out this disease at its source. we now have some 3,000 american civilian and military personnel on the ground in west africa, up from several hundred a few months ago. these brave men and women have been responsible for constructing ebola treatment units, building a hospital for infected medical workers, training hundreds of health care workers to serve on the frontlines and countless other response functions. in addition, american leadership has helped galvanize more than $2 billion in contributions from the international community and in liberia, where our response has been concentrated, we have seen promising response -- results in the form of declining infection rates, indicating that our strategy is working. that's what you'll hear the president make the case for today for -- and that is
precisely why you'll hear the president make the case today for congress to swiftly fund the emergency request that the administration submitted last month. virtually every additional wave requires immediate additional funding to be continued or advanced. the president's request would provide critical resources to build out our domestic facilities, take the next steps on ebola vaccines, therapeutics and diagnostics, fund our vital ebola response in west africa and strengthen global health security to prevent, detect and rapidly respond to the spread of ebola in any other vulnerable countries, and combat any similar infectious disease threats. that's what you have to look forward to today. i have one other scheduling update, that is, on friday, the president will meet with newly elected governors from across the country to discuss ways in which the administration can partner with states to promote economic opportunity for middle class americans. the president and incoming
governors will discuss how to build our growing economy by creating more jobs and ensuring that every american who works hard as an opportunity to succeed. i understand the vice president will be participating in the meeting as well. the governors will participate, incoming governor of alaska, illinois, maryland, massachusetts, pennsylvania, and texas. so that will be friday afternoon. just those governors. arkansas is not on the list i have here but if governor-elect hutchison is able to make the trip, we'd find a seat for him at the table. do you want to get started with questions? >> has the president settled on defense secretary nominees? >> i anticipated that you or one of your colleagues might ask me that. what i can tell you is not much. the -- i don't have any personnel announcements to make today. but as soon as we're in position to start making those announcements, we'll be sure to
let you know. mr. carter is obviously somebody who has generated a lot of headlines today. he is somebody who has previously served the administration as the deputy secretary of defense. a position that he filled very ably. he was confirmed by the united states senate into that position in september of 2011 by unanimous consent. so this is an indication that he fulfilled some of the criteria we have discussed in the past. he's somebody that certainly deserves and has demonstrated strong bipartisan support for his previous service in government. he's somebody that does have a detailed understanding of the way that the department of defense works. and i personally am a pretty strong advocate of people who have previously performed well in deputy roles being promoted to the top job.
so that's been a recipe for success in filling previous personnel positions but that said, i don't have an update at all on the process. i think it's for all these reasons that have been widely reported that mr. carter has been on the short list. but in terms of, you know, where things stand in the process, i don't have any additional information to share at this time. >> is there -- is there anyone else on the short list and would you describe him as the leading candidate? you seem to have a lot of nice things to say about him. >> he is somebody who did serve, served the president and american people well previously in this administration. but i don't have any additional insight to share with you about the process or other people involved in the process or even any additional information about the timing of the process. >> but there are reports saying that the president has selected him. are those reports inaccurate? >> i've read those reports, i can't comment on them at this point. >> on ebola, while the white
house today is talking a lot about some of the progress being made, doctors without borders is saying that the international response has been slow and uneven and they say the international community has come in to develop management structures but aren't providing the hands on care needed on the ground. does the president agree that that's a valid concern and does he think the international community needs to do more to provide hands on medical care. >> i haven't seen the precise statement you are referring to but i cab say the president does believe that additional efforts will be required if we're going to stop this outbreak in its tracks in west africa. there are still a lot of people in west africa who are suffering and as long as people are suffering from the ebola virus, we know that there are -- they are a risk of spreading that disease. while we believe and continue to believe that the likelihood of a widespread outbreak in the united states remains exceedingly low, that risk is
not zero until we have stopped this disease in its tracks in west africa. and that is why you're going to hear the president pretty forcefully advocate for additional resources to advance the efforts we have already undertake ton try trie to stamp out this disease in west africa. >> one of the ideas circulating up on the hill is to pass a spending bill through september but leave d.h.s. at current levels as a way of getting at the immigration orders. would the president sign legislation like this? >> that's one of many ideas circulating on capitol hill. i know that's something republicans have been talking about in a meeting they convened on the house side earlier today. i don't have the specific reaction to that proposal other than to say, the administration believes it's the responsibility of congress to pass a full year budget for the federal government and that's what we'd like to see them do. we'd like to see them pass that budget for the full government. i think i said yesterday, we're not asking them to do anything
heroic, we're asking them to do their job. that is the responsibility that's been given to the united states congress by the founders of this country and we believe it's important for the congress to fulfill that responsibility for a variety of reasons, including that republicans themselveses have observed that adding some consistency and some certainty to this process is good for the economy. it's good for people trying to make business decisions if they know they don't have to worry about the shutdown of the government or partial shutdown of the government. so we're hopeful that republicans will follow their own advice in that regard and pass a budget for the full federal government. >> are you seeing warning signs of another government shutdown looming in the next few weeks? >> well, there are people who probably do a better job of reading the tea leaves, so to speak, of the republican conference than i, but you know, senator mcconnell was pretty declarative after the election that there wouldn't be a shutdown. he obviously is somebody who is
going to have a pretty significant say over how this process works. so we certainly take some heart in senator mcconnel's comments. we also take some heart in the view that's been expressed by people in both parties that a government shutdown is not good for the american economy and a government shutdown, at least in the fall of 2013, was not good for the political prospects of republicans. i don't think that's everybody's view but i think that is -- i feel confident in saying that's the majority view, at least of the majority of republicans here in washington. i hope that that prevailing view will carry the day. >> hearing some of the testimony today to the house homeland security committee, seemed to not bode well for congress wanting to fund the immigration measure. i don't know if you can talk about that testimony but it seems to be, at least as strong feeling as we've heard in the
rhetoric prior. >> i did not have a chance to watch that testimony firsthand. i did read some coverage of it this morning. i was not particularly surprised that people who were critical of the president's announcement a couple of weeks ago reiterated that criticism in the context of secretary johnson's hearing today. but the fact is, republicans adopted the view that is contrary to the view of the vast majority of americans that we shouldn't reform our immigration systems. they think that's a bad idea. the president happens to disagree. that's why the president acted on his own within the confines of his authority to try to reform as much of the broken immigration system as he possibly could. that's the nature of the step the president took about 10 days -- days ago. that's what secretary johnson discussed today, i'm not surprised there were house republicans critical of that effort but again, those house
republicans who had negtive things to say have a view of immigration reform that stands in stark contrast of the view by the president, the view that's been articulated by senate democrat, the view articulated by some senate republican the view that's been articulated by people across the country, that's been articulated by law enforcement across the country, the view that's ar articulated by the catholic bishops and faith community across this country. so the harsh words from house republicans today may have earned them some ink, maybe even some coverage on cable television today but it doesn't change the fact that they, because of their views on this issue, remain isolated from the american public. >> for two days now, we have heard you stridently push for the funding for ebola. does the administration feel like there's any confidence in
getting that? it just seems like you feel the need to real ji stress that. >> yeah. as i described it a little bit yesterday, i think we have seen recognition on the part of democrats and republicans on capitol hill that providing the necessary resources to the ebola outbreak and to ensure that we have a high level of readiness here in this country is a legitimate national priority. and we are pleased that that seems to be a bipartisan view. at the same time even when it comes to issues like immigration reform, we have seen other things that people on both sides of the aisle have identified as a legitimate national priority that haven't made progress in the congress. so this is an effort to make sure that we are continuing to remind people across the country and democrats and republicans in congress that fully funding is -- these programs that are
improving their readiness here in this country and stamping out this ebola outbreak in west africa have the resources necessary to succeed. it's clearly in the interest of the american people. ? do you feel like there's a chance that that won't happen? do you feel like there's -- >> it would be a shame if it didn't happen particularly because we have seen expressions of support from democrats and republicans about how and why this should be a priority. so we're going to continue to work this, obviously the president is going to spend some time talking about this at the national institutes of health later today. >> on ferguson, yesterday, when we got the list of everybody in attendance, i notice that there weren't any member of the ferguson police department among the law enforcement. any particular reason for that, why you wouldn't include that department in particular? >> the president was interested in gathering stake holders across the country, not just one community. so i can't account for who was not in the meeting. but i can tell you that those
who did participate in the meeting felt like it was a really important discussion and even debate in some instances to have about the importance of building bridges and restoring trust between law enforce. agencies and the communities they're sworn to serve and protect. >> they didn't feel it was necessary to put somebody from that police department there? >> no. s the kind of discussion taking place not just in ferguson but in communities across the country. i think the president was able to tap into that broader national sentiment in the context of the committee, even though it didn't include law enforcement officials from ferguson, missouri. >> there are a couple of different tax extender proposals on the hill right now. at least a couple. there's a one-year package, the senate democrats are looking at a two-year package. where is the white house on this? would you support a shorter term and do you have a preference?
>> well we have been in close touch with democrats and republicans in both the house and senate to discuss some of these issues. obviously last week we made it known to all of you and to all of them that the president took a pretty dim view of proposals that would shower significant tax benefits on well-connected corporations without providing much relief to working people in this country. the president doesn't believe -- the president thinks that an approach like that is both unfair and bad economic policy. the president believes that the way to strengthen the economy is make sure our economy is growing from the middle out and we do that by addressing middle class families and those trying to get to the middle class. that's why we should be focused on policies that do exactly that. there are some policies that would benefit big businesses but allow these businesses to create jobs and expand economic growth and opportunity in a way that
would be good for middle class families. i'm not suggests that there aren't things we can do that would be beneficial but we need to make sure we're focused on the interests and concerns of middle class families. that's what's most important, both, again, because it's the most fair way for us to run the business, run of the business of the american government and also the best way to strengthen the economy. >> would you tell us a short -- would you veto a one-year package? >> i didn't bring my -- i didn't walk out here today planning to issue any veto threat. i don't think i'm going to. but we'll see what happens over the course, i'm not going to respond to your question. we are going to evaluate the proposals being discussed on capitol hill, we'll continue to participate in those discussions and we're hopeful we'll come up with something that we believe is good for middle class families. oug?
>> the house is expected to vote as early as next week on overturning the president's action on immigration. if the senate acts similarly, will the president veto? >> we have indicated that the president would strongly oppose any legislative effort to undo the executive action he announced about 10 days ago. the action the president is taking are well within the confines of the law and within the authority he's been given by the united states constitution. they also are clearly in the best interests of the american people. we need to restore some accountability to our immigration system and that's exactly what the president's executive proposals would do. it would streamline our legal immigration system, it would do a lot to bring millions of people who are already in this country out of the shadows, make them pay taxes, make them get right with the law.
and the fact is, the closest thing we have to amnesty in this country, doing nothing, and that's exactly what house republicans seem to be advocating. >> as you know, this public interest group, cause of action, sued the i.r.s. last september, seeking all documents from the i.r.s. taxpayer information that may have been shared with the white house, with the executive branch. a federal judge last september ordered the i.r.s. to turn over those documents by a deadline of yesterday, december 1. instead of turning over the documents, they sent a letter to this group, cause of action, saying in effect they were not going to turn them over, they're going to withhold them because they're privileged taxpayer information. cause of action read in part, we deemed documents to be relevant.
these consist of return information protected by the u.s. code. because no such exception exists here we're withholding them. has the united states -- has the white house been given privileged taxpayer information? by the i.r.s.? that should not have been scared? >> i can tell you that i am not familiar with the specific case that you're raising here. that's not surprising to me. there obviously was some distance between the white house and the i.r.s. because it's an independent organization that's responsible for collecting taxes. it is -- it conducts that business outside the rem of any sort of political interference and those are rules that we adhere to pretty closely. you're also citing a letter written by the inspector general, somebody who acts independently of the administration. so --
>> the office of the secretary of the treasury prevented them turning over the documents. >> well, i refer you to the treasury secretary's office for the explanation for why that may or may not be the case. i'm just not familiar with it. >> you're saying as a rule the white house has never been offered privileged taxpayer? >> as a rule the obama administration ha b rigorous in following the rules and regulations that govern proper communication between treasury officials and white house officials and internal revenue service. >> something else happened today in the senate. some of your ambassadors were confirmed after a long, long process. one is the ambassador to hungary. what are her qualifications for
ambassador? is it that she was a soap opera producer or helped raise hundreds of thousands of dollars for oh obama re-election campaign? why was she chosen? >> i can tell you first that you're right, that the confirmation of these individuals to these important ambassadorial posts are long overdue and we are pleased the senate finally acted on them. as it relates to ambassador bell, she is somebody who retains the confidence -- let me say it this way. am because dor bell has the president's confidence that she will do an excellent job of representing the united states and maintaining the important relationship the united states has with the government and the people of hungary. >> where does the president get that confidence? her confirmation hearing she couldn't name a single strategic interest the united states had with hungary? >> she definitely is somebody that has had her own
distinguished private sector career. >> as a soap opera producer. >> and somebody who obviously has succeeded in the business world and she is somebody that the president has confidence will be able to maintain our relationship with the government and people of hungary. >> can you tell me that the fact that she helped raise hundreds of thousands of dollars for the president's re-election campaign has had nothing to do with her appointment? >> that's not the reason she wa >> i was not part of the decision making process. but i can tell thought reason she was chosen is because the president has complete confidence in her ability to represent the united states. >> what does the president think overall of this practice? obviously it didn't start with him. there's a long history of this. but big donors to political campaigns getting rewarded with posts. isn't in the kind of practice that he first came to washington to do away with?
>> all i can say is that these ambassadors who are representing our country overseas have very important responsibilities and these are responsibilities that the president -- nobody here at the white house takes lightly. these individuals who have been recently confirmed to their posts don't take those responsibilities lightly either. we are looking forward to ambassador bell being moved to hungary and getting down to the important work that she has in front of her. >> clearly the president's long-term professional elationship, including secretary hagel, was important factor in his appointing him as secretary of defense. will this criteria still hold with the president in terms of the -- whoever is the next secretary of defense nominee, in terms of the president's knowledge, working knowledge of this individual and their long-term relationship and his confidence in that individual?
>> certainly having a personal relationship with the president like secretary hagel does is beneficial to him in the role that he has had for the last two years. he's been a part of a lot of very important decisions and he's had to give some unvarnished advice to the president in some very difficult situations and having a personal relationship like that is helpful. but it's certainly not a requirement. there are a number of other individuals who have important positions in this government that did not have a previous personal relationship with the president, didn't serve with him in the senate, for example. and so that is an indication benefit rtainly is a but not a requirement. >> a couple of things. one on the defense secretary appointment. i know you're not ready to say who it is. we'll keep guessing. i do want to know -- [inaudible] -- secretary
panetta, secretary gates and maybe someday from the next secretary, secretary hagel, about the control from the white house. account next nominee expect to -- can the next nominee expect micromanagement like previous defense secretaries? >> i think if you're looking back -- i'm not a scholar in this area -- but i believe if you look back at previous administrations, there's always natural tension that exists between the pentagon ability white house. the president is the commander in chief so he obviously has a significant say over what kinds of things are rapping -- happening over at the department of defense. that said, i think the president has been proud of the service of the three previous -- or the three gentleman who have served as the secretary of defense in this administration. because they have fulfilled a very important responsibility in terms of running a large agency that has a significant impact on the core mission of keeping the american people safe. the president is pleased with
their work and the president's been proud of their leadership but i think the kind of tension that you're describing is not at all unique to this administration. >> senator mccain said that he's favorably inclined -- didn't say he voted for him. how does that affect confirmation? >> as a general matter, when mr. carter was nominated to be the deputy secretary of defense, he was confirmed with unanimous consent which means there wasn't a single member of the united states senate that objected to his nomination. i think that's an indication that he's somebody who has succeeded in the past of winning strong bipartisan support for his leadership in government service. but -- and that certainly is part of the criteria for whoever the next secretary of defense will be. but it's not -- having previously served in government is not a requirement for this
job. speaking of piggybacking on cheryl -- [inaudible] -- would the president sign a short-term extendser package -- [inaudible] >> we'll continue to work with members of congress to examine what's exactly included in these proposals. so in the same way i'm not -- i didn't promise to veto anything when cheryl asked, i'm not promising to veto anything that you're asking either. but we'll certainly continue to consult as a part that have process and we'll see what comes up. >> just following that line of questioning. last week you were able to articulate objections you had to what was emerging. the house bill that's on the website, it's going to go to rules, do you have objections to that? >> well, the reason that we were able to express such a ear point of view rather strenuously is that it was the emerging outlines as it was
being reported clearly violated what the president believes is a core principle of his economic philosophy. >> what you see this week clearly violated it in the same way. >> not necessarily. again, i don't want to prejudge the outcome here because this is legislation that, yes, has been posted but was only posted last night. still being reviewed. i'm not in a position -- >> [inaudible] >> right, because it was so clearly objectionable. >> i'm trying to find where you guys are. >> right. what i can tell you is that -- i guess maybe you could interpret that because we're not right out of the box, forcefully promising to veto it, we don't have as bad a view of it as we did this deal that was being discussed on capitol hill last week. the reason i think for that is involving a couple of things. there's a significant difference between taking one element of the tax code and extending it for one year and making it permanent. and that certainly is a
significant factor as we evaluate the proposals that are being generated by both the house and the senate. so we're going to continue to consult with that process and we'll see. >> [inaudible] >> i wouldn't go that far. still reviewing is where i'd put it. >> is the process of choosing a defense secretary complete? >> there is a lot of interest in this position. >> is the process complete? >> no. there's a lot of interest in the process too. >> you remind us that that is a prerequisite to the ceremonial announcement and presentation. if you can tell us if the process itself is complete. >> i don't have any updates on the process. >> you can't say? >> i'm not -- i don't have anything to say about the process itself. i guess the one thing i can say about the process is this. when the president is ready to announce a decision, we'll make sure all a of you are there to hear it. >> have you reached a decision?
>> that's a part of the process i'm not ready to talk about. >> is the ebola funding issue of sufficient significance that if it's not included to the satisfaction of the president it could jeopardize the entire omnibus being drafted for the remaining one year of budget cycle? >> that's a good question. ensuring that we have the necessary resources to meet this important criteria, again, to ensure that we have the proper level of readiness here domestically and that we're dedicating the necessary resources in west africa to actually stamp out this outbreak is a top national security priority. the president has articulated that previously. it continues to be a top national security priority today, even if it is getting a little less media attention than it has over the last several months. so i'm not prepared to say, you know, to issue a veto threat. but i am prepared to say that as the omnibus works its way through the process, we certainly have been in close
touch with members of congress to make sure that they understand that these resources for combating ebola should be included in the omnibus, obviously, and will be something, will be an element of the omnibus package that we'll be paying very close attention to. >> on the ndaa. the house said it's going to bring that forward later on this week. hoping it's not amended in the senate. is that something you're inclined to support as drafted? >> i did have the opportunity to talk to a couple people about this issue this morning. there are a couple things i can say about it. this is something that administration officials have been working on for quite some time with their counterparts in congress. both in the house and senate, both democrats and republicans. this has been a genuine bipartisan process. that's the way that this process has worked in the past
and that's the way it appears to be going again this year. the nature of these kinds of efforts though is that the legislation is essentially a compromise which means that not everyone gets everything that they want. in this instance, i anticipate that the administration is not going to be able to get everything we want to see included in this pack ac. -- package. as of this morning, the details had not been posted yet and we've not seen the final details. we do have insight about what might be in there. let me go one step farther to say there are a couple of things we're looking at that we anticipate will be positive. either won't be in there or will be in there in a way that we find disappointing. when it comes to the positives,
that they pate needed to train and equip syrian opposition fighters. that is something that we've been working closely with congress to be sure is included in this specific proposal. week of also been working with members of congress to ensure that some of the reforms to fight sexual assault in the military is also included in this proposal. i believe some progress has been made in that regard as well. we certainly would welcome that progress. there are a couple of things in there that we are concerned about. the first is, as has been the case over the last several years, we do anticipate there will be additional language in this legislation that will limit the president's ability to close the prison at guantanamo bay. that's something that we have been pretty critical of in the past. if it's included in there again, it's something we'll be critical of again. the president believes that -- >> [inaudible] >> we're going to evaluate the whole package. >> in the past, i'm saying. >> in the past we have gone
ahead and signed legislation that included this language, even though we registered our objection to this language. the other thing that we have trongly advocated is the inclusion of some badly needed budgetary reforms at the pentagon. these budget reforms have been strongly supported by both the civilian and military leadership of the pentagon and they have made the case that these budget reforms are necessary because it has a critical impact on the ability of our men and women in uniform to do their jobs safely and keep the american people safe. so we have advocated for the inclusion of these reforms. we have reason to believe that we may not have gotten nearly as many of these reforms as the administration would have liked.
potentially making tweaks to this legislation as of this morning. there's a chance that maybe some of these concerns could be resolved. but somebody did -- i don't remember who it was, john, i guess maybe it was you who asked about this events of the administration micromanaging the activities of the pentagon. the fact is, you have civilian and military leaders at the pentagon asking congress for very specific budgetary reforms that will strength national security, but time and time again we've seen members of congress refuse to go along with them. i don't know if it gets -- if you could do more to micromanage the pentagon than refuse to include the budgetary reforms that our civilian and military leadership believe are critically important to the military being able to do their job. >> so there's more micromanaging from congress than the white house? >> we'll see what the eventual
inclusion is in this legislation. both as a principle that we support for reater stuff. >> one last thing. tuesday when the president was getting some blowback from the audience in chicago during his immigration remarks, at one point he said, i just took action to change the law. did the president misspeak in a moment of sort of passion to try to calm the crowd or does he fundamentally, do you fundamentally believe that he has taken action a to change the law? >> i think he was speaking colloquialy. that what he has put in place -- meaning that obviously -- that it's the responsibility of
the united states congress to pass laws. and it's the responsibility of the executive branch to mplement and enforce them. >> i think he was speaking colloquialy again. say that five times fast. maybe i'll stop saying it. >> how are you? >> i'm doing great, thank you. >> the short-term c.r. for the department. i'm wondering if the white house holds similarly strong views and disease that rise to the level of it -- and does that rise to the level of it being enough for the whole package -- [inaudible] -- on
homeland security. >> this is one of the benefits of cabinet secretaries testifying before congress. they can make sure the members of congress are acutely aware of the concerns that they may have, the steps that congress may be considering. there are a wide variety of proposals being bantied about by republicans and democrats on the hill. i know this is a proposal that many house republicans are pretty focused on today. so it is our view that congress should fulfill their responsibility to pass a full-year budget for the full federal government. there are some proposals that are being considered that would stop short of that. and we'll consider these proposals when -- if and when they're passed by either the house or the senate or both. but weble that it's important for congress to -- we believe that it's important for congress to pass a budget for the full federal government. >> you're not ruling it out at
this point? because it's not yet clear -- >> i guess because for two reasons. one is because, yes, the details of the proposal that house republicans are focused on are not entirely clear at this point. they haven't put something forward. but also because that's not the only proposal that's being discussed on capitol hill for making sure that we funds the government by december 11. so for those two reasons, i'll reserve judgment beyond saying that we do believe the congress has a responsibility to pass a full-year budget for the full federal government. >> two subblets. one on ebola. there has not been an ebola case in the country for a while. any new cases. is this country still not out of the woods? >> is the country still not -- >> still not out of the woods? remember the president said a couple weeks ago in the roosevelt room that we are not out of the woods. are we still not out of the woods yet? >> well, i think what the
president may have been talking about is a number of people who -- that list of a couple previous ebola patients. i think he was referring to that specific incident -- incidents. as a general matter, i can say the president does continue to believe that the likelihood of a widespread outbreak in the united states remains exceedingly low. but the president and his administration continue to be vigilant to make sure that we are at an appropriate level of readiness to deal with an ebola patient if one should present himself or herself at a medical facility in this country. so we're watching that very carefully. ght obviously are very ti monitoring processes to ensure that those who have conveniently traveled in west africa and are in this country are probably being screened both as they enter the country and also for a number of days after they have arrived.
protocols are in place, being closely administered, carefully administered. and the president continues to believe that the risk to the american public is not entirely eliminated until we've entirely eliminated the ebola virus from west africa. and we have still seeing, despite the progress that has been made, there are still communities in africa fighting this deadly disease and the president want to make sure that we're devoting the necessary resources from the united states to combat this and stop it in its tracks but we're also going to continue to urge the international community to step up and fulfill their responsibilities that they have to fight this outbreak as well. again, as long as this outbreak is still under way in west africa, it poses a risk to citizens of countries around the globe. and we'd like to see -- continue to see governments and organizations and citizens from chris around the globe -- from countries around the globe assist in the response to thevert.
, a question from yesterday reverend al sharpton said as it relates to president obama going to ferguson, he told me on the phone last night, he said, if this president were to go to ferguson, an invite would need to come from the family and come from the community. is that what you're waiting for, for the president to go there? >> no, it's not. again, the president wants to have a national discussion because there are communities all across the nation who are grappling with some of these issues. who are grappling with the law enge of protective enforcement, also has the trust of the community that they're sworn to serve and protect. that is difficult work. what we do know, the good news is, what we do know is that the more trust that law enforcement has from the community, the more effect thave law
enforcement agency can be in fighting crime. so building those kinds of relationships and facilitating that kind of transparency and accountability is critically important to the basic work of law enforcement. these are individuals who walk out the door every morning, kiss their kids good-bye and go to work knowing that they're prepared at a moment's notice to put their life on the line to protect the community. that's honorable work and that's work that is worthy of our respect and appreciation. but we also know that those individuals are going to be more effective in their job if they do have the trust of the community that they're serving. so this is a complicated issue. this is one that communities across this country have been dealing with for decades. so it's not something that we're going to solve over the course of a few weeks or not one that we're going stove in the context of one specific trip but something that we're going to address through a sustained effort and a sustained dialogue.
you heard from the president directly himself yesterday indicate his desire to lead that effort. >> you talk about trust. are you looking at something that could be a short-term solution, a major short-term solution that could really shake up the system or structure, a structure that's been there for so long, maybe january, february or after the holidays, you keep talking about trust and solutions. what could that be and what could that bring? >> i don't think that there is one solution that's going to work for every community across the country. i think what we're going to need is we're going to need to see a commitment from local leaders and local law enforcement stepping up to the plate and deciding what reforms are going to work best for their agency and work best in their community. to try to build this bond of trust that we believe is so critically important to fighting crime. and this is the nature of the
conversation that the president had with law enforcement and civil rights leaders and state and local elected officials over just yesterday. this is difficult work and there are several ways in which the federal government can support this effort at the local level, whether it's additional training, new technology, including body-worn cameras, there might be other equipment that could be of assistance in this effort. there are other resources that can be provided to help implement best practices, things that work well in one community could be transferred and implemented into another community, to have a positive effect on the relationship between law enforcement agency and the community. so there are a lot of ways the federal government can be helpful in this effort and the president is interested in mobilizing resources at the federal level to do exactly that. >> thank you. on sunday taiwan had very significant elections in which
pro-independents candidates routed the ruling party and the call for independence in taiwan went up. china has long said that independence would mean harsh action from them against taiwan. is this something the president is following and he talks about hot spots so often. and is the administration still fully committed to the taiwan relations act to protect the republic of china and taiwan? >> i can tell you that the president has been briefed on he outcome of the elections. let me have one of my colleagues follow up with you to make sure we get you the right answer to that. >> the other thing i wanted to ask was, congressman dan mica of florida re-released a report did he four years ago when democrats were in charge in the house about government assets being mismanaged by so many different government agency as, the general services
administration, eight others, he recommends selling this to private business to manage some of the government buildings and properties and says he has bipartisan support. is this something the administration would embrace, the selling of federal assets to the private sector? >> well, i know -- i know this is something that the office of management and budget has been focused on quite a bit under this president's leadership. that there has been a concerted effort to reduce costs, to cut red tape and to deal with surplus federal government assets. and i know that's been done to save taxpayers not just hundreds of millions of dollars but i believe billions of dollars and that's thanks to the cost-cutting efforts of senior members of the obama administration. i haven't seen representative mica's proposal but it's certainly something we'd take a look at. >> couple quick things. first on ebola. i wonder, the fact that the esident -- [inaudible] shift
of level of concern. -- ou give us a sense now -- particularly as it relates to talking to members of congress? >> i can tell you the administration does believe that the funding for these ebola priorities should be taken very seriously by members of congress. there are early indications -- >> [inaudible] >> there are democrats and republicans in congress who have indicated that they share the administration's view that these are priorities. that there is a need to redouble our efforts to improve readiness in this country, and a need to redouble our efforts in west africa to stop the outbreak nits tracks, where we can tyler eliminate the ebola risk to the -- we can entirely eliminate the ebola risk to the american people. i know there are democrats and republicans on capitol hill who share that view.
now, as i also mentioned, just because democrats and republicans believe something is a priority doesn't guarantee it's going to get done in congress. so that's why you've seen this administration continue to forcefully advocate for its passage and we are hopeful, as i mentioned earlier, that it will be included in an omnibus proposal that would pass through the congress before december 11. as it relates to mr. clay, i know he's accompanying the president to the national institutes of health to be participating in those activities while the president is there. i don't know any specific calls he's had with members of congress but i wouldn't rule it out. >> is his role still open-ended? >> in terms of does he plan to leave? is that what you're asking? or in terms of something else? no, i don't know of any plans that are in place for him to leave. i know there's still a lot of important work on -- to ensure that we are stamping out this
ebola outbreak, that remains to be done. i'm pleased to report he'll be here to make progress against that goal. >> the u.s. intelligence agency of nvolved in the capture -- [inaudible] >> i've seen those reports. about the lebanese indicating that they had attained an individual who fits the description. i don't have much i can share with you about this. i certainly can't talk about any intelligence agency activities from here. but i know that the lebanese government has talked a little bit about what they have learned and i'd refer to you them for that information. >> can you talk about the whether the u.s. has been involved in any interrogation of this woman -- [inaudible] >> i'm not in a position to do that, no.
>> on ebola. has the president reached out to any lawmakers regarding funding? >> i don't know if there are any presidential conversations to share with you. i know there have been -- well, actually, i take that back. i know this is something they discussed when the president convened that lunch here with the congressional leaders shortly after the election. this was one of the things that was on the agenda because again the president does believe this is an important national security priority and at president urged leaders in both parties to be supportive of efforts to dedicate necessary resources to fighting the ebola outbreak. and to improving readiness here in this country. so this is something that they've talked about, that the president has discussed with congressional leaders. >> if they're really thinking that maybe then taking the cause public might be counterproductive in the sense that there's a sort of shaming element to it? >> i don't think there's any naming and shaming going on in this instance at least. this is a situation where we've
seen a lot of republicans articulate share support for funding these priorities. we certainly would welcome that support and rather than shame it, we would compliment them for focusing on important priorities. there's priorities in making sure the necessary resources are included in this omnibus proposal, that an omnibus proposal gets through the united states congress before december 11. so there's important work to be done, it's important for the american people to recognize that that work is still on to the-do list. and we hope that congress will -- on to the-do list and we hope that congress will confront that quickly. thanks, everybody. have a good afternoon. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national able satellite corp. 2014] >> tonight, testimony from homeland security secretary jay johnson on border security and
president obama's recent executive order on immigration. he spoke earlier today in front of the house homeland security committee and you can see that hearing tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. on c-span2, a senate commercial could hearing on the current domestic violence policies of professional sports leagues. we also heard testimony from former nfl player troy benson who spoke about his experiences as a child seeing his mother as a victim of domestic violence. here's more now. >> mr. chairman and committee, when i consider these issues, i bring the perspective far beyond an nfl executive. domestic violence was a way of life in my home growing up. my brother and i watched helplessly numerous times as my mother was beaten and knocked unconscious, as we dialed 911. we saw how she struggled to seek help and find the cufrpbl to say no more -- courage to say no more. the fear and the complexities
accompanying this violence remain very real in my life today. i've committed my life work for the last 20 years as an advocate against domestic violence, an effort to keep others from experiencing this pain. i relate to the 20 million ctims, survivors of domestic violence, sexual abuse and in every community across our great nation. in addition, i had the honor and the privilege of playing in the nfl nfl for 15 years -- in the national football league for 15 years. 12 of those years i served as a union official. four of those years i served as a players association president. i support the interest of all players in the fair process. i led these efforts, i know the majority of our current and former players are terrific husbands, fathers and men who have made incredible
contributions to their communities. mr. chairman, players know that league standards are not labor issues nor management issues. they are issues that concern everyone. in 2007 the league and the players union worked closely together, collaborating in developing a personal conduct policy. i was part of those efforts. and today just as in the past the league has invited the nflpa, along with other experts, to assist us in setting the highest possible standards. the nfl's taking a number of steps to improve how we respond to incidents of domestic violence, child abuse and sexual assault. first, through efforts personally led by the commissioner, the nfl's undertaken a thorough review of our personal conduct policy, having consulted with over 100 leading experts across a broad range of subjects. our goal is to set clear rules to govern accountability for misconduct, to establish a fair process for our players and
employee discipline. we will create a conduct committee responsible for review and recommend changes to the personal conduct policy going forward. experts will continue to advise both the conduct committee and the commissioner so that we always have the right voices at the table, on both educational and disciplinary work. second, we're deploying a comprehensive mandatory education program for more than 5,000 men and women in the nfl family. our goal is to ensure that everyone understands and has a full scope of this behavior and is familiar with the warning signs associated with these crimes. education also promotes prevention. bistandard intervention, how individuals can appropriately and safely help those at risk is another key focus area of our education. third, we are training critical response teams to help prevent and respond quickly to family violence and sexual assault, including safety, medical, .egal and financial support
fourth, we are supporting leading domestic violence and sexual assault awareness and prevention groups, including the national domestic violence hotline and the national sexual violence resource center. fifth and finally, we are raising awareness of this critical issue. domestic violence, child abuse and sexual assault in collaboration with the no more campaign, and the joy for hearts foundation. the nfl's airing public service announcements during our games. finally, we're promoting programs for those who play, coach and manage our game at all levels, including age-appropriate character development, healthy relationship education, as well as dating violence, domestic violence, child abuse and sexual assault education. we've learned a great deal from our mistakes and by listening to experts in the domestic violence, child abuse and
sexual assault communities, the more we listen, the more week of learned and become more aware of these complexities. both of the problem and the solution. we are working hard to balance the issues of a fair process with the goal of preventing and punishing these behaviors. mr. chairman and the committee, we believe that waring the uniform of an a nfl player is a privilege. it is not a right. every member of the nfl community must embrace this unique leadership role that we play in our society and the rust that you put in us. we look forward to working with the community to advance these goals. i know we all share. thank you for this opportunity and, chairman, i thank you for your lifetime service in this area. >> thank you, mr. vincent. that was excellent testimony
d honest and it's a good beginning. thank you. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] >> that was part of a hearing held earlier today on domestic violence in professional sports leagues. you can see the entire event tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span2 or any time online at cspan.org. plus earlier today, house members debated and later approved a bill that terminates social security benefits for individuals who participated in nazi persecution, regard ms of the manner in which the individual left the united states. the bill was introduced and sponsored by texas republican sam johnson. this is 20 minutes. legislative and extend their remarks. today i rise as chairman of the ways and means subcommittee on social security, the committee of jurisdiction over social security benefits, in support of the no social security for nazis act, legislation i
introduced along with ranking member javier becerra. the world must never forget the six million jews and other innocents murdered in the hol cast -- holocaust. america has worked hard to prevent nazis from entering the country and reaping the benefits of u.s. citizenship, including social security. social security is an earned benefit, hardworking americans pay as a portion of their wages for promises of future benefits. however, it's a benefit that was never intended for those who participated in horrific acts of the holocaust. under the social security act, social security benefits are terminated when individuals are deported due to participating in nazi persecution. some individuals whom the department of justice identified as nazi persecuters were denaturalized or
voluntarily renounced their citizenship and left the country to avoid formal deportation proceedings. however, due to a loophole, certain nazi persecuters have continued to receive social security benefits. today. and we'll put an end to this loophole, i hope. the bill amends the law to stop enefit payments to those denaturalized due to participation in nazi persecution or who voluntarily renounced their citizenship as part of a settlement with the attorney general related to participating in nazi persecution. the bill also makes sure that these individuals do not receive spousal benefits due to a marriage to a social security beneficiary. lastly, the bill requires the attorney general to certify to the ways and means committee
and finance committee that social security has been notified of all those whose benefits should be terminated due to participation in nazi persecution. it also requires a commissioner of social security to certify that benefits were terminated. this legislation is currently co-sponsored by over 47 members of the congress and also letters of support have been received from some of the following organizations -- the association of mature american itizens, jewish federations of north america, national committee to preserve social security and medicare, republican jewish coalitions, strengthen social security coalitions, and the zionist organizations of america. mr. speaker, i ask that these letters be inserted in the
record as well. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. johnson: for many years the loophole has allowed those who perpetrated horrific crimes against humanity to receive benefits paid by the united states government. while the number of nazi resimilar yents of social security -- recipients of social security benefits may be few now, allowing payments to continue is an inexcusable insult to those who is suffered at the hands of the nazis. mr. speaker, i urge all members of the house to vote yes and pass the no social security to nazis act today so the senate can take action soon and that the president can sign it into law without delay. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. bass: mr. speaker, thank you very much -- mr. becerra: mr. speaker, thank you very much. and let me yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. becerra: let me begin, mr. speaker, by thank i my colleague, but more importantly, my dear friend, mr. sam johnson from texas, for
the work that he did to move so quickly, working with his able staff to try to make sure we had a bill come before us. i also want to make sure that i salute the staff on this side of the aisle for the work they did in partnership to make sure that we could quickly put a bill on the floor of this house that could address what all of us agree is a glaring omission. and so i am pleased to stand here to say, mr. speaker, that we have a bill that not only will take care of those dollars that americans contributed to social security on a daily basis as they go to work and pay into this system, but it also will protect the dollars that so many americans now rely on to receive their benefits. today, mr. speaker, 160 million americans work and pay into social security. they know that because they do that, their families will be protected if they happen to die or if they happen to become disabled or if they decide to retire.
now, for most of the 58 million americans who are already retired or currently receiving social security benefits of some sort, that social security benefit is the most important source of income for them. one of the greatest privileges we have as americans living here in the u.s. is the opportunity to work and earn this social security protection for ourselves and for our families. we recently learned, as mr. johnson had mentioned, that nazi war criminals and collaborators slipped through a loophole in our laws and began receiving social security benefits. the record is clear. congress never intended for the perpetrators of the holocaust, the systematic bureaucratic state-sponsored murds of more than six million jews and millions of other innocents, to be allowed to enter the u.s., let alone participate in social security. it's been our long standing policy that when nazi persecuters who came under false pretenses are discovered,
that they be deported and stripped of all their privileges of u.s. citizenship and residency, including of course social security. i'm pleased to be here today because today what we're saying is, we're ready to act. this legislation will tightly close a loophole that's allowed some individuals to use and retain social security benefits even after their holocaust crimes have been proven and their citizenship has been revoked. as the chairman of the -- and -- as the chairman has mentioned, and as we are trying to make clear today, it is critically important that we make everyone aware that when you work for social security, you've earned it and only then will you get it. and so when someone uses a loophole, tries to take advantage and then believes that they can get away with it, we want to be able to act quickly and make it clear that it will never happen again. we want those safeguards to be
in place for everyone who's been working hard and paying into social security for years and years. they're the ones that own it. not people who have defrauded our government. like past congresses, we believe that we must act quickly because the issue of the holocaust is not unresolved in our minds. we know what we must do to anyone who perpetrated those heinous acts. we must act as quickly as we can. so, mr. speaker, i say this with a great deal of pride and friendsship, that i stand with the chairman of the social security subcommittee today, mr. sam johnson, to urge my colleagues to join us in closing this loophole now before social security has to pay another dime to a nazi war criminal. with that, mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas. mr. johnson: thank you, thank you, mr. becerra. i appreciate your remarks. mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from -- the gentlewoman from
tennessee, mrs. black, a member of the committee on ways and means. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. mrs. black: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank my colleague for yielding to me. mr. speaker, for many today, the heinous acts of the nazi party in world war ii era are a story relegated to the history books and museums. the fact is, some of these war criminals are still alive. and they're even getting a monthly check from uncle sam. an associated press investigation found that dozens of nazi suspects have collected social security benefits due to a loophole in our lalls. and the cost to the taxpayers has reportedly reach the millions. seniors in my district already have concerns about the future of social security. the last thing that they want to see is their government using scarce taxpayer dollars for this purpose. that is why i was proud to co-sponsor with congressman sam
johnson's no social security for nazis act, legislation to cut off benefits to anyone stripped of their u.s. citizenship related to their participation in nazi crimes. no act of congress could ever make the atrocities of the holocaust or bring justice to its six million victims. but ending the flow of the payments to those human rights violators would sure be a step in the right direction. i thank the gentleman from texas for his good work on this issue and this bipartisan measure and look forward to voting in support. thank you and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from california. mr. becerra: mr. speaker, we are expecting another speaker but if i could reserve my time and let the gentleman from texas proceed if he has another speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas. mr. johnson: mr. speaker, i yield three minutes to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. lance. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for three minutes. mr. lance: thank you, mr.
speaker. i rise today to urge passage of h.r. 5739, the no social security for nazis act. which will correct an injustice of two generations and right a terrible wrong in the name of the lives of those lost as a result of the holocaust. to think nazis are receiving social security benefits derived from tax receipts of the american people is sickening and morally wrong. and today congress will move to put an end to it. this effort was originally championed in the 1990's by my predecessor from the district i have the honor of serving, the late congressman bob franks. and i am proud to continue his effort and see this legislation pass on the floor of the house today. . the united states, including my home state of new jersey, stands in solidarity with the jewish people, the state of israel, and the decades-long struggle for peace in the world following the
nazi atrocities. this action is yet another step in demonstrating that our resolve for justice is unyielding and our commitment to pursue what is right continues even 70 years after world war ii. i thank my colleague, congresswoman carolyn maloney, of new york city for her leadership on this issue and for asking me to co-sponsor the original bill that she had initiated. i also thank congressman sam johnson and the ways and means committee for taking up this effort. the world can never forget the hate and intolerance of the 1930's and 1940's that claimed the lives of millions of people of the jewish faith and forever scarred the face of man kind. but this effort be another chapter in the healing that has praut vigor to the pursuit of justice, attention and care to all human suffering, and the work toward a world of greater
understanding and peace. when given the chance to put an end to an egregious practice, we must act. i urge passage today of this important piece of legislation. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey yields back. the gentleman from california. million balance sara: at this time, i'd like to yield three minutes to the gentlewoman from new york, who has been very active on this issue, mrs. maloney. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for three minutes. mrs. maloney: i thank the gentleman for yielding and i thank my friend and colleague on the other side of the aisle, leonard lance, for coming to new york, for working in meetings, and to advancing this issue before the social security department and also the justice department. mr. speaker, for decades former nazis complicit in war crimes have been getting monthly social security benefits checks due to a loophole in the law. it's an outrage that began at the end of the world war ii when thousands of nazis came to the
united states. they fled and came here. many lied about their past so that they could become american citizens, take jobs, and try to just blend in. but most were eventually identified and he deported and some were tried for their crimes. however, dozens were never formally deported. if a former nazi left the u.s. on his own before a final order of removal was issued, the law allowed him to keep receiving his social security benefits. as the author of the nazi war crimes disclosure act of 1998, which opened up all the files of the c.i.a. on the nazis and what they were doing in america and in europe, i have been working on this issue for really decades. in 1991, i co-wrote a bill to close this loophole by creating a new legal process to terminate benefits. earlier this year i wrote the social security administration
seeking more information on former nazis who continue to receive social security benefits. they will be issuing a report to me and others on exactly how much money is involved. and after an investigative report by the associated press revealed new details of nazis receiving social security benefits, i wrote to the i.g. of the justice department and have had meetings with them and social security administration to investigate exactly how this all occurred. i also worked with my colleagues, republican congressman leonard lance of new -- ey and jason shea fits chaffetz of utah. it was supported by editorials across this nation. we received a total of 19 editorials in support of our bill. in the interest of time i would just like to put in the record roughly five of them because i
think it's important that across this nation from the south, the west, the east, the north, all of them have come out strongly in support of not spending one taxpayers' dime to support nazis. the ways and means committee took on the same effort. our bills are similar. either would be sufficient address the problem. both would affirmatively declare individuals who have been denaturalized or renounced citizenship on the grounds of participation in nazi persecution ineligible for social security benefits. i urge my colleagues to end this outrage, close this loophole, and send a message that when we say we will never forget, we mean we will never forget. and that we will stop this terrible abuse of taxpayers' money going to social security benefits for nazis. i commend all my colleagues who have worked on this important issue. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back.
the gentleman from texas. mr. johnson: thank you. i presume my co-chairman, do you have any further -- mr. becerra: we are prepared to close. r. johnson: thank you. i'll reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from california. mr. becerra: thank you, mr. speaker. at this stage i think it's important to close on a particular note. i don't think it gets lost on the chairman or me that when we sit as the chairman and ranking member on the social security subcommittee, we have a major responsibility. and that is to make sure that what people expect when they allow a good chunk of money to come out of their paycheck, it's going to be used for what they believe. and that is for social security benefits for those who have
earned them. when something like this comes along where you find out that someone figured out a way to circumvent the laws and the process and take advantage of getting dollars out of america that have been put in for the purpose of providing security to those who retire or become disabled or who die, it really makes you want to act. but when you realize that on top of that the folks that are gaming the system are folks who should have never been in this country in the first place. because they committed heinous crimes. and were perpetrators of some of the worst evils we have seen in history, then it makes you want to act doubly fast. at a time when we deal with major issues and oftentimes have challenges and reach an agreement, the american people
should watch for a second because in this case we are coming together to say that we understand the purpose of social security. it's important to extend a thank you to the chairman of the social security subcommittee for making sure that before we ended this year and ended this session we had an opportunity to put our vote on the floor saying no. if you don't earn your benefits, you won't get them. and if you shouldn't have been here in the first place, then you certainly shouldn't get social security as well. it's important to get this done. we hope the senate will act quickly. before long hopefully the president will have an opportunity to sign this and forever we'll be able to say that we he know that no perpetrator of the who cost will ever have an opportunity to steal social security from those who have worked hard to earn it. with that, mr. speaker, and thanking the staff on both sides
of the aisle for the work they have done so diligently and to my friend and chairman, mr. johnson, i say thank you. i want to yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from texas. mr. johnson: thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, mr. becerra. it takes two to tango and fortunately we haveal compatible interest on this committee. i want to thank the ranking member, mr. becerra, and his staff for working with us on this important legislation. mr. speaker, i again urge all members of the house to vote yes and pass no social security for nazis act today so the senate can take action soon and that the president can sign it into law [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] >> members return wednesday at 10:00 a.m. eastern for morning
speeches and noon for legislative work. tomorrow lawmakers will start work on a bill that would create a tax-free savings account for families of persons with disabilities. and they'll begin debate on a measure that would extend certain tax provisions set to expire at the end of the year. follow the house live here on c-span when members gavel back in tomorrow morning at 10:00 .m. eastern. >> the c-span cities tour takes book tv and american history tv on the road, traveling to u.s. cities to learn about their history and literary life. this weekend we have partnered with time warner cable for a visit to waco, texas. >> as we began to receive the vinyl to be digitized, to be saved, we began turning over the b sides of the 45's that we'd received. first off, gospel music was not widely heard in the right community. it would only be the hits, if that. but the flip side would be heard even less. and what we discovered quickly was how many of the b side
songs were directly related to the civil rights movement. very few databases, one of them complete, on all gospel music. we didn't know that. we didn't know the sheer number of songs that had -- songs like "there ain't no segregation in heaven" type songs. at a time when possessing one of those songs, much less singing it, was a very dangerous thing in the deep south. you could get killed for a lot of things in the deep south, but singing that sort of song out loud, that's a risk. >> the texas ranger hall of ame was set up in 1976 for the 175th anniversary of the rangers and honors at this point 30 rangers who made major contributions to the service or gave their lives under heroic circumstances. we have paintings or portraits of all of those rangers. they really began with steven f. austin. austin was very successful with his rangers. they fought not only managed to
make the area reasonably safe for settlement from indian raids but when they -- the texas war for independence broke out, the rangers played a major role in texas gaining its independence by saving -- stavegging off the mexican army long enough to allow the collin nistses to blir as a result, texas became its own independent nation for about 10 years. >> watch all of our events on saturday at noon eastern on c-span's book tv. coming up tonight on c-span, homeland security secretary jeh johnson on the president's immigration order. then, a look at the 2015 congressional agenda. senator rob portman and congressman hollen. after